Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
They extended the sale of XP Home until 2010.
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...ow-cost-laptops_1.html
Granted its being targeted at ULCPC but its not a different version.
They extended the sale of XP Home until 2010.
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...ow-cost-laptops_1.html
Granted its being targeted at ULCPC but its not a different version.
That still means it's only going to be an OEM product by 2009. You won't be able to buy a separate copy as a consumer once supplies run out other than an ebay or craigs list.
You know better? Name one serious program that doesn't support XP anymore. Give us a list of computing task that we can only do in Vista. Why should we move on and spend $$ to "upgrade" when we can perform everything we need perfectly with XP. How in the world can you compare XP when 99.999999% of software/hardware in the market still support XP, how many of those software/hardware support DOS again?
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
You are missing the point,when XP was new there was a lot of software that would not run,I still have a few old games that don't work in XP,however thats besides the point since any OS has a limited life span even with compatibility.You can't expect everybody to stay on XP forever,you can't expect Microsoft to stop at XP,you do know about progress?
My remark about DOS was not about compatibility ,point I was making progress move forward and new operating systems takeover ,new software compatiblity moves from OS to OS.I could say to you how much of the current software runs fine in 2K,so why do we need XP,works both ways,funny how XP users forget about 2K and its compatibility if you want to argue that point.
People like you would probably prefer to stay on XP forever ,now that is scarey.I say again XP won't be here forever,Vista is compatible with a lot of software and that software compatibility will grow with time just like it did with XP until it is also replaced,get over it,Microsoft have every right to do what they want with regards to their operating systems.
I can't think of any type of support I'd ever want from MS for my OS other than a security patch/ service pack. If they continue that with XP, i could use it forever.... hmmmmm. There was that one time i called MS CS in India for help changing my desktop background, but since then I've learned a decent bit on my own - mostly from reading up on forums. I don't know how to write my own security patches though...
IMO, vista users who 'downgrade' or switch to another OS are not blissfully ignorant of the 'greatness' that lies somewhere within vista. I used to use Vista, and liked it. However, It felt too slow and trashy, theres really no simpler way to express my opinion on it. After having issues with it, it felt Like they just re-wrote a bunch of code over layers of old stuff. Would be nice to try something written from the ground up geared at performance. Until then I'm sticking with XP Pro.
(until something better/faster comes out that i really need)
There are plenty of instances where newer versions of software are going to support Vista only:
The new version of yahoo messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/windowsvista.php
DX10 games (DX9 only for XP)
I cant think of any programs that are Vista only that arent included with the OS, but I cant think of anything that will run on XP that wouldnt on 2000. Upgrading to a newer OS isnt about being able to do new things, its about being able to do things better.
See above. OTOH, there are quite a few viruses that will run in XP that won't in Vista, and UAC can stop a great number more in their tracks, so perhaps you should think a bit about the things that will run in XP that WON'T in vista.
You probably shouldnt upgrade unless youre an enthusiast, but you also probably shouldnt stick with XP when you buy a new system thats perfectly capable of running Vista.
Why go with vista? Stability, security, eye candy, continuing support.
If everyone was so dead set on halting progress just because they're comfortable with their current OS, we'd still be running DOS.
I still say they should keep XP alive until theyre able to create a smaller, leaner Vista for those PCs that require it. I can certainly understand why anyone wouldnt want to upgrade, I certainly wouldnt bother if I wasnt an enthusiast. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong or broken about vista when it's used on the right hardware. Hardware which is really cheap nowadays. The people having real problems are the people upgrading older hardware.
On the other hand, I do understand the mindset of "why the hell do I need all this stuff installed on my and/or resident in memory that I'm *never* going to use?"
On my older laptop, I absolutely do not need an indexer, windows media player scanning/sharing, tablet PC support, windows media center, a mail application, and god knows what else that comes with Vista that you can't remove/disable without resorting to hacks like vlite. The one size fits all mentality has got to go, and a lot less people would be complaining about the performance of Vista on their older (and sometimes newer) PCs if microsoft wasnt so intent on shoving their software down your throat so they can push out competitors like they did to netscape.
yeah exactly. A super-stripped full-powered "Vista Lite" would be a much desired product. Not everyone has a qx9770 w/ 8gb ddr3 / Raid Raptor / Geforce in their laptop.
If there was a Vista Lite with stability & with 1 click ease of installation, I'd probably go for it.
But at the same time, its ridiculous to assume that you could keep the features of Vista that you want while at the same time keeping it as lean as XP. You still can't get something for nothing. Most of the "good stuff" is going to come at some cost.
I am not saying Vista is broken or anything, if you get an new PC, get vista by all mean as long as you are sure your hardware/software is supported. But OP's article stated that 60% of consumers and 70% of business users will still be using XP by the end of 2008, that is the majority. And for that majority that's already using XP, there is really very little reason to upgrade to Vista with the extra cost and possible incompatibility of their existing hardware/software. And it absolutely makes no sense that MS should kill the support of an OS that the majority is still using right now, like mem stated. And elitist statement like "the rest of us know better" pisses me off, like that 60%/70% of PC users have the same computing needs like those vista users and have to go vista like those guys stated.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
You do know if Microsoft kept to their normal OS replacement time period,XP would of long gone by now,its only because XP has been around too long we now have this problem or resistance if you like.
I still say they should kill it,its not because I hate XP ,infact I have used it for 7 years plus and just think its time to put that old dog to rest,I'll probably say the samething about Vista when I think its time is up,fortunately thats not for awhile and I doubt any OS will get to run as long as XP has so far..
it's strange hitting my computer ---> properties, and seeing "Version 2002" on an OS that I installed last week. 
Sure, but support has to end at some point. MS's policy as far as I understand:
"Support for Windows XP will eventually come to an end. Mainstream support for the product is scheduled to end in April of 2009. For extended support, the end date is pegged at April of 2014."
2014 seems pretty reasonable to me, windows 10 will probably be out by then.
As far as availability goes, it's really nothing more than a BS talking point. I submit into evidence exhibit A:
http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...&qid=1208374921&sr=1-4
Or better yet:
http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...&qid=1208375039&sr=8-1
Fear not, you'll still be able to find XP long, long, long, long after you actually still care to use it, even from mainstream sources.
Why should replacement time be the determining factor? If your car still runs fine, no problem at all, would you go and buy another car just because it's been xzy years since you buy the car?
There is a reason why a majority of people still use XP and not rush to Vista, and it's not because majority of people are stupid, it's simply money and sense. Vista just don't offer enough incentive for people to upgrade. And for MS to kill XP support, and force their customer to upgrade, it is not only unethical, it is a stupid business move in terms of customer relationship.
MS is killing XP support in 2014. That will make XP 13 years old, centuries in OS terms. How is it unethical to stop support. By 2014, MS will be looking to release Windows 8.
Nobody is forcing all those XP users to upgrade. XP doesn't stop working in April 2009. I'll try to avoid the car-OS analogies, cause they really don't work. Suffice it to say that processor technology changes a bit faster than the internal combustion engine, therefore 5 years in OS terms is very different than 5 years in automobile terms. What MS is doing is stopping the sale of XP (retail). This is normal whenever any product gets upgraded. If I want a 2001 version of a Maytag washer and dryer, my only option is e-bay or used, as Maytag doesn't sale that model anymore. They still make parts (i.e. support) but don't manufacture that model.
How is that so hard to comprehend? That retorical is not directed at you rchui, but in general to the bleating petition signers.
PhreePhly
True enough, but then again, we don't expect Ford to still make replacement parts for 10 year old cars either nor do we try to invoke warranties 10 years later.
There are, of course, plenty of reason for people not to go to a new OS right this moment. Then again, they are the same reasons people didn't upgrade to XP right away either. The truth is, Vista adoption rates are pretty even with XP adoption rates. The XP install base was just shy of 10% after its first 12 months. Vista was just shy of 11% after its first 12 months. All this tells us is that people will upgrade when they are ready. Petitions to "save" an OS that was in reality no better off than the current OS was after a year is kind of silly.
MS ended "Mainstream support" for Win2K a few years ago, yet there are still people and business running it. MS is not going to stop supporting XP anytime soon. They aren't going to be selling it. MS probably won't stop supporting XP until around 2014. Personally, I think supporting an OS for 13 years is more than enough. No other software company supports their products that long.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
What do you think Microsoft have been doing over the years way before XP etc remember DOS,95,98 etc.... nobody is forcing you to upgrade but that does not mean Microsoft can't drop support for older operating systems and move forward ,some of us want to move forward and leave XP behind.
MS will end current mainstream XP support in April 2009. The support until 2014 is a "more limited" support, who knows what that means. April 2009 is only a little over 2 years after Jan 2007 Vista release. Windows 2000 moved from mainstream support to the "extended" support phase on June 2005, almost 4 years after Windows XP (Oct 2001) release. Yes Vista has similar adoption rate compared to XP, but XP was given much more time for users to move from their old OS compared to Vista.
It's obvious the reason why MS wanna cut the XP support so soon is because Vista took so long to complete, and MS wanna recover the R&D it spend ASAP. Sure it will benefit them, but what about the majority of their customers out there still using XP. And like I said already, it doesn't matter how long MS have been supporting XP, what matters is 1. Majority of their customer is still on XP, 2. It doesn't give enough time for people to move to new OS. And if they care about their customer and how their customer feel about them, they better rethink about their XP support strategy.
Good for some of you, but for the rest of the MAJORITY consumer and business MS customers, we want to stick around a little more. It's up to MS to decide if our business is important to them enough to show a little better customer support/service so we will continue to use MS products.
Windows 2000 moved into "extended support" in 2005, about 5 years after it was released. Windows XP is slated to move into extended support in 2009, about 8 years after it was released.
About extended support:
In other words, if something goes wrong, tech support will help you fix it, but we arent going to change or add anything new.
Despite the fact that Win2k is in extended support, its still used quite widely. Businesses have IT guys, you know.
So basically, XP will be the most supported OS MS has built ever. They'll be providing technical support until 2014, for nearly 13 years after it's release.
Win95 came out a little over 13 years ago. Do you really care about it, care to use it, or think theres really any business out there thats actually still using it?
I really, really don't see what there is to complain about. XP or support for it isnt going anywhere, relax. You're blowing this WAY out of proportion, there is no conspiracy to force people onto Vista to recoup costs.
Extended support covers mainly security updates only. This shouldn't matter as XP is pretty mature at this point. The main reason for Windows 2000 having extended support was that it was part of MS's old support cycle policy. The new policy took effect in oct. 2002 and calls for 10 years of support; 5 years mainstream and 5 Years Extended. Due to the Vista Code reset, MS decided to extend XP's support, essentially adding an additional 3 years. Users have plenty of time to upgrade and move to a new OS. Every new computer purchased will be a Vista PC. Anyone who downgrades to XP has only themselves to blame when support runs out. Anyone who wants to stay on XP has until 2014. I still don't see your point. MS isn't doing anything wrong. 13 years of support is pretty good. Not many software companies have that policy.
Also, larger enterprises have different support contracts with MS, and may have extended support beyond 2014, however, chances are they will have moved on to a new OS.
PhreePhly
And it's not as if XP systems are going to cease to function in 2014, or bill gates is going to come knocking on your door asking for his XP back. If the whole reason you want to keep XP is because it's stable on your hardware, it isn't going to be any less stable in 2014, assuming that hardware actually still functions.
But honestly, it would take a certain type of insane to even consider installing XP on the 96-core 10ghz Core 5 96-o, 64GB DRR7, 15TB solid state, Geforce 15800 8x SLI systems we'll probably be running in 2014.
All of this "save xp" madness comes from nothing but a blatant misunderstanding of what "support" and "extended support" actually mean.
Heh, it's not because Vista Code reset that caused MS to extend XP's support, if MS stopped XP support after 5 years (released Oct. 2001, it would be Oct. 2006), there won't be any new OS for user to move to since Vista was released Jan. 2007.
See again, it's not how long the OS has been supported, its how long the new OS has come to the market. People were still getting XP PC before Jan. 2007, that's barely 1 1/2 year ago. That's hardly a very long time ago, and those system are hardly "ancient". For people like us, we would never call MS for support, all we need is security updates and hot-fixes. But for average users, and most importantly business, where cover your own ass with somebody else to support you, support is important and it sucks to know that something you only bought less then 1 1/2 year ago is gonna be out of "mainstream" support. Which to many non-tech. people can be a scary thing.
Now if Vista has been on the market for 3+ years, it wouldn't be as bad since most people would have vista by then since PC buying cycle is around 3~4 years, and for those who still have the old OS, they'd understand because they know their system is pretty old.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter